Why LOST? Why now?
By Henry Lamb
web posted March 22, 2004
Part XI of the Law of the Seas Treaty is right out of an Orwellian
novel. A magnificent International Seabed Authority is created,
which will operate a state-of-the-art production facility called the
"Enterprise" - a world-government-owned operation to mine the
mineral riches of the seabed, and distribute its wealth for the
"common heritage of mankind" - after expenses, of course.
The treaty demands that the technology of developed nations be
shared with the Enterprise first, and then with developing nations;
that any other mining operation in non-territorial seas pay an
exorbitant application fee, and royalties as much as 12%; that
member nations finance the International Seabed Authority and
the Enterprise; that all treaty organs and entities be immune from
lawsuits, search and seizure, and from any accountability to
anyone, other than its own member nations, each of which has
one vote.
Ronald Reagan rightly rejected this treaty in 1982.
Since no U.N. enterprise is meaningful without U.S.
participation, LOST proponents decided to scrap as much of the
treaty as was necessary to get the U.S. on board. Part XI was
"renegotiated" during the Clinton years, and was signed by
President Clinton and advanced to the Senate for ratification.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee "studied" the
renegotiated treaty until 2000, and then sent it back to the
President.
At the request of the State Department, the current Foreign
Relations Committee studied the treaty again, on October 14,
and 21, 2003, and on February 24, unanimously voted to send
the treaty to the full Senate for ratification, in hopes of a voice
vote, with no further debate or a recorded vote.
Nothing has changed about the treaty. It is the same treaty that
was rejected by the Foreign Relations Committee in 2000. What
is different is the Chairman of the Committee, Richard Lugar (R-
IN), instead of Jesse Helms (R-NC).
Nine people were invited to testify in behalf of the treaty. No one
was allowed to speak in opposition to the treaty.
Assistant Secretary of State, John Turner, spoke of the treaty in
glowing terms, and then yielded to the State Department's legal
advisor, William H. Taft IV. Taft's assignment was to convince
the Senators that the changes made to the treaty by the 1994
renegotiation made it a great treaty that would bring many
benefits to the U.S.
Taft told the committee: "With a guaranteed seat on the Finance
Committee of the International Seabed Authority, we would
have an absolute veto over the distribution of all revenues
generated from this revenue-sharing provision."
Actually, the treaty says: "Until the Authority has sufficient funds
other than assessed contributions to meet its administrative
expenses, the membership of the Committee shall include
representatives of the five largest financial contributors to the
administrative budget of the Authority." (Agreement Section
9(3))
There is no guaranteed seat on the powerful Finance Committee,
once the Authority has sufficient funds to cover its administrative
expenses. Moreover, there is no "absolute" veto granted.
Procedural decisions are to be taken by a majority vote.
"Decisions on questions of substance shall be taken by
consensus" (Agreement Section 9(8)).
This is precisely the same language that the Foreign Relations
Committee rejected in 2000. Why should the Foreign Relations
Committee, or the U.S. Senate, now find it to be acceptable?
Taft revealed a fundamental flaw in the State Department's
thinking when he told the committee that "...the convention
give[s] the United States the right to regulate fisheries in the
largest EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) in the world...."
The United States already has this right, acquired by Presidential
Proclamation 5030, March 10, 1983. Ratification of the treaty
simply subordinates this right to the rules and regulations of a
U.N. body.
In fact, this treaty can provide no benefit or right that the United
States does not already possess. Ratification by the U.S. would
benefit every other state party - at the expense of the United
States.
Were there no other flaw with this treaty, Article 2 provides
sufficient reason for its rejection. This Article requires of every
state party, that: "... sovereignty over the territorial sea is
exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of
international law."
A "yes" vote for this treaty is a vote to surrender sovereignty
over our territorial seas to an international power.
The hope for a non-recorded voice vote is fading fast. Senator
James Inhofe (R-OK) has scheduled additional hearings in the
Energy and Public Works Committee, March 23. Senator Inhofe
has asked to hear opposition
testimony that Senator Lugar would not allow.
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental
Conservation Organization, and chairman of Sovereignty
International.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com